4 ms·

Links? I'd like to see examples of the posts and accounts you have in mind.

by dang 3mo ago

sndgndgndgndy 3mo ago
The particularly egregious instance I'm thinking of from back in 2013 would link back to my doxxable info, so unfortunately you'll have to take my word for it. Disappointing, I know, but it's not worth leaking anything when dealing with these vicious amoral scumbags. I do suggest at least familiarizing yourself with the scope of Hasbara's efforts on social media sites like and HN and reddit, however, as that is public information. Edit: looks like I actually had the foresight to use a throwaway in 2014, so there's no doxxable info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8406178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8406178 @dang please see this
- sndgndgndgndy 3mo ago
  [flagged]
- Cider9986 3mo ago
  They are just quoting the guidelines. Not bots :dismayed-face:
  - sndgndgndgndy 3mo ago
    That phrase never appears in the site guidelines. Try again.
    - Cider9986 3mo ago
      The site guidelines could.... change
      - sndgndgndgndy 3mo ago
        Provide evidence that they ever contained that phrase. You can't, because you made it up, because it didn't happen.
sndgndgndgndy 3mo ago
Making a fresh child reply in case that helps visibility. Please see this linked example from 2014: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8406178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8406178
- dang 3mo ago
  We banned that account a long time ago, but having taken a quick look I see no reason why you would call that a state propaganda account, other than (1) it expressed strong views that you strongly disagree with, and (2) that always makes a post more likely to seem fake, disingenuous, etc. From my point of view, there's no evidence for this. Doesn't mean it wasn't true, of course, but in the absence of evidence I would go with the simpler explanation, which we know for a fact happens all the time: there are a lot of people who feel strongly about the topic and share the opinions this account was stating (just as there are on the opposing side). I also don't think your theory is consistent with all the other posts that account made about everything from Photoshop to Javascript floats to package managers to whether rms is autistic, OpenBSD, and so on. Of course one can argue that this just proves how clever the state propagandists are, and how good at covering their tracks, but this line of reasoning ends up getting pretty absurd. The fact is that HN has, and has had for years, very many commenters articulating these same opinions, sometimes within the site guidleines and sometimes not, and just the same is true of commenters articulating opposing positions. I don't see any difference between the comments people single out as examples of putative astroturfing and the others. Moreover there's nothing in the private data we have that would change this picture significantly. On the contrary, all the evidence points in the other direction: real users with strong feelings and therefore strong opinions. This kind of thing is exactly why we have that guideline that asks users not to post accusations of astroturfing, foreign agenting and so on, but rather to contact us privately. We're not saying these things don't exist—but the odds that you (I don't mean you personally, of course, but everyone in this situation) are reading-in something that isn't there are orders of magnitude higher.
  - sndgndgndgndy 3mo ago
    Why would multiple accounts make the same very specific "Please no simplified propaganda on HN" quip if they weren't collaborating somehow? How could multiple accounts arrive at that same exact phrasing if they weren't controlled by the same person or group of people? I honestly can't think of another rational explanation.

Links? I'd like to see examples of the posts and accounts you have in mind.

by dang 3mo ago

Links? I'd like to see examples of the posts and accounts you have in mind.

The particularly egregious instance I'm thinking of from back in 2013 would link back to my doxxable info, so unfortunately you'll have to take my word for it. Disappointing, I know, but it's not worth leaking anything when dealing with these vicious amoral scumbags. I do suggest at least familiarizing yourself with the scope of Hasbara's efforts on social media sites like and HN and reddit, however, as that is public information. Edit: looks like I actually had the foresight to use a throwaway in 2014, so there's no doxxable info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8406178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8406178 @dang please see this

sndgndgndgndy 3mo ago
[flagged]
Cider9986 3mo ago
They are just quoting the guidelines. Not bots :dismayed-face:
- sndgndgndgndy 3mo ago
  That phrase never appears in the site guidelines. Try again.
  - Cider9986 3mo ago
    The site guidelines could.... change
    - sndgndgndgndy 3mo ago
      Provide evidence that they ever contained that phrase. You can't, because you made it up, because it didn't happen.

sndgndgndgndy 3mo ago

Making a fresh child reply in case that helps visibility. Please see this linked example from 2014: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8406178 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8406178

dang 3mo ago
We banned that account a long time ago, but having taken a quick look I see no reason why you would call that a state propaganda account, other than (1) it expressed strong views that you strongly disagree with, and (2) that always makes a post more likely to seem fake, disingenuous, etc. From my point of view, there's no evidence for this. Doesn't mean it wasn't true, of course, but in the absence of evidence I would go with the simpler explanation, which we know for a fact happens all the time: there are a lot of people who feel strongly about the topic and share the opinions this account was stating (just as there are on the opposing side). I also don't think your theory is consistent with all the other posts that account made about everything from Photoshop to Javascript floats to package managers to whether rms is autistic, OpenBSD, and so on. Of course one can argue that this just proves how clever the state propagandists are, and how good at covering their tracks, but this line of reasoning ends up getting pretty absurd. The fact is that HN has, and has had for years, very many commenters articulating these same opinions, sometimes within the site guidleines and sometimes not, and just the same is true of commenters articulating opposing positions. I don't see any difference between the comments people single out as examples of putative astroturfing and the others. Moreover there's nothing in the private data we have that would change this picture significantly. On the contrary, all the evidence points in the other direction: real users with strong feelings and therefore strong opinions. This kind of thing is exactly why we have that guideline that asks users not to post accusations of astroturfing, foreign agenting and so on, but rather to contact us privately. We're not saying these things don't exist—but the odds that you (I don't mean you personally, of course, but everyone in this situation) are reading-in something that isn't there are orders of magnitude higher.
- sndgndgndgndy 3mo ago
  Why would multiple accounts make the same very specific "Please no simplified propaganda on HN" quip if they weren't collaborating somehow? How could multiple accounts arrive at that same exact phrasing if they weren't controlled by the same person or group of people? I honestly can't think of another rational explanation.